Thanks for the upload Joel! Good stuff! It just goes to show that evolution is a religion. You would think with all the sci-fi movies out that show a more intelligent-than-us beings in the universe, Bill would at least entertain the possibility that they created us.Duh! Oh the truth of Romans 1:18-22! I think Ken is right that it is hard to get anything other than a young earth. Even if you allow for “gaps” in Gen 5 you can’t get an old earth. It is a test: Are we going to believe God? Or are we going to believe natural modern man? And I think alittle common sense would go along way in the whole argument. God just made every thing full grown and with the appearance of age and set it all into motion. The first world had different measurements, and the flood chaged everything. Good to see old Ken going at it! Been a fan for a long time.

Something I find noteworthy and not necessarily a blot on either person, especially Mr. Nye, is that neither man has a graduate degree. Mr. Nye has a bachelors in engineering, Mr. Ham in biology. This is noteworthy because both men have immersed themselves in science over the decades and so while their conclusions disagree, clearly they are educated, thinking individuals. Mr. Nye is well respected, especially among secularists but by the populace in general, and yet his academics is not in “science” but math. And yet he is viewed as and promotes himself as an expert on science in its broad scope. This is important because it is a useful rebuttal against those who naysay or detract against those who argue against evolution or anthropogenic global warming, etc. and do not have an academic background in those fields. Clearly, if you can show that you’re well read enough and have thought enough on the he topic, a degree in the respective field isn’t necessary, except if you want to teach something more than just introductory level college courses, which. Mr. Nye cannot do because he only holds a bachelors degree.

The potential rebuttal works well for you too Mr. Richardson against your detractors depending upon your academic background. A graduate degree does not necessarily make one an expert in any subject and there are no doubt many people who have no degree or technical training but have far more experience and expertise in their field of choice than others who have PhDs.

I very much enjoyed this debate and thought that Ken Ham laid out a very impressive case for the creation. Mr. Nye appeared to have some sort of “hang-up” regarding the “American English” translation (which one is that, exactly?) of the Bible (as if other translations might somehow disprove creation?). It’s not clear what was behind that or how it supported his beliefs; it seemed like a distraction. Anyone else care to comment on that?

I took it as if he was inferring that fundamentalists are ignorant of the actual Scriptures and must read a very restricted version of the Bible to support their equally restricted and narrow worldview. Always said with a knowing snarky smirk. Just more typical condescending humanist nonsense.

I’m curious of Joel’s take on this subject. I gather Joel’s big on Walter Kaiser’s work and I remember Ken Hamm debated Kaiser and Hugh Ross on a similar topic. I find animal death before sin hard to integrate with the Biblical narrative. I often wonder if “creation out of nothing” has been properly understood and taught.

I have come a long way in understanding the origins of our world called terra firma. After a thoughtful and well argued position of the old earth position and how it really addressed a lot of my questions that the young earth creationist could not answer, I am squarely in the old earth camp. It made sense of what the Bible says and what it does not say for the origins of our planet. The earth is simply not six thousand years old. It simply is not. The physical evidence supports that it is not, but much, much older. But it is my personal view from one who learned from a Christian geologist who can explained it better than I. There is no interest on my part to start a debate, but simply to say that not all Christians are young earth creationists supporters.

I just want to say that John Harrigan’s Biblical Theology of Mission course over at Daniel Training Network has a few lessons in the beginning that are absolutely phenomenal in regards to this subject. They are Earth’s Global Flood, False Evidences for Evolution, Evidence for Recent Creation, The Glory of the Original Earth, and the Glory of Original Man. Cosmogeny is so essential. Link: http://danieltrainingnetwork.org/introduction-biblical-theology-of-mission/

This is more than a little painful for me. Creationism is a big tent. Unfortunately it seemed to be bigger when I was younger.

Christians can defuse most of the issues between themselves and secular scientists by applying the same principles that Joel is using with end-time prophetic passages: the creation chapters of Genesis were not written as a 21st-century textbook for western scientists; we need to see them through the eyes of the contemporaries of Moses with an eastern mindset who were grappling with surrounding peoples who worshiped local ― not universal ― deities.

I’ve seen too many young people who were taught that believing in a young universe is equivalent to believing in Christ’s sacrificial atonement for sin. When they get to college and are confronted with the overwhelming evidence of an old universe and earth, they often lose their faith. That shouldn’t happen. All truth is God’s truth.

I’m also thinking of neighbors the same age as my wife and me (mid-fifties) that we have become friends with over the past year. The wife is a Christian and the husband isn’t. She’s a home-grown Texan from a modest background and he’s a brilliant mechanical engineer from California who owns a company that caters to the local semiconductor industry.

He has several objections to Christianity, among them the belief of some that the universe is only some 6,000 years old. All the evidence he sees contradicts that, and his thinking is that if Christians are wrong about the age of the universe, then they’re wrong about everything else as well. He respects Christianity as a nice belief system but doesn’t see it as any different from Buddhism or other philosophies. His wife desperately prays for him to become a believer. I do, too, but have found that I need to tread lightly with him: sitting him down and reading him the Four Spiritual Laws just isn’t going to work.

I like the distinction that Ken Ham made between observational and historical science. I also agree with his observation that the word “evolution” has been hijacked. He’s a committed Christian and a brother in Christ.

On the other hand, as a Christian who happens to be a scientist ― degrees in chemistry (Baylor) and chemical engineering (Texas A&M) and 30 years of work ― I usually cringe at what passes for “creation science.” I’m not a huge fan of many of Bill Nye’s causes and would rather have seen him debate someone like Hugh Ross or Michael Behe. That’s unlikely to happen though ― he and the organizers picked an easy target.

Joel, feel free to email me if you would like to discuss this issue. Because of my profession, my beliefs, and where I live, I’ve been around the block on this a few times. It seems to have become important in the past few decades. Some sweeping points:

1) I am a conservative Christian and anyone would be hard-pressed to find meaningful theological differences between me and someone like Joel or, say, John Piper. I believe that God spoke the universe into creation out of nothing (ex nihilo). The Big Bang Theory, developed by a Belgian priest, says that there was nothing, not even empty space, before the universe. Scientists initially resisted the theory ― its very name is a derisive term that stuck ― because it was too close to the Biblical story of God’s creation.

I believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that sin entered the human race through their disobedience. I believe that Noah was a real person and that he and his family were the only human survivors of a real flood. I don’t believe, however, that the flood covered the entire planet, but only the area of the Levant occupied by humans. The Biblical text doesn’t demand a global flood and God’s creation doesn’t show it.

2) I find nothing in the Bible to suggest that the earth is 6,000 years old. Quite the opposite actually. The Hebrew word yom can mean anything from part of a day to a very long, unspecified length of time. I don’t believe that God would tell us one thing through his creation and another thing through his inspired word. The idea that God created the universe with the appearance of an old age is an intellectual evasion. God doesn’t deceive.

3) I have no idea when or exactly how God created Adam and Eve. The Bible doesn’t say and I’m not going to presume to speak where the text is silent.

It’s a mistake to use Biblical genealogies to calculate the age of the earth. The first question is which genealogy to use: Matthew, Luke, 1 Chronicles, or Genesis. The eastern mind doesn’t think of genealogy the same way that 21st-century westerners do. Some 17 verses in the New Testament describe Jesus as the “son of David,” but we know that he wasn’t literally David’s son, but rather a descendant, and more than just a physical descendant.

Jews in the days of Jesus, and even today, describe themselves as children of Abraham. Yet Jesus said in John 8:39 that “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did….” God doesn’t see genealogy the same way that we do.

4) Eden was a special place where the ordinary rules of earth didn’t apply. Most Christians gloss over Genesis 2:15 where it says that God took Adam from wherever he was created and placed him in Eden. I don’t buy into the claim that there was no physical death among the animals on the entire planet until Adam sinned. That’s a fairly recent invention and doesn’t fit with what God has shown us through his creation.

5) The creation chapters of Genesis aren’t typical Hebrew poetry, though they do have poetic elements. I’m not suggesting we read it as allegory, but rather that we read it according to how God inspired it.

There are more committed, conservative Christians engaged in scientific pursuits than either non-believers or young-earth creationists would like to admit. Most of us don’t have a problem reconciling God’s special revelation through his word with his general revelation through nature.

Time and distance mean nothing to God. Believing that we live on a 4.5 billion-year old planet in a 14 billion-year old universe is humbling and speaks to us how special God’s love is that he would care for us as individuals and become the word incarnate to live among us as the only perfect human ever and lay down his life so that we might have eternal life.

One, I believe that Jesus believed that the earth was roughly 4000 years old, as did the apostles and the early Church. (Actually, they believed it was around 5500 years old, due to a faulty chronology). And two, I fundamentally disagree that all evidence shows that the earth is older than 6000 years. That said, I don’t have the time to debate the numerous issues concerning this here. And I would ask that no one else does, as I time is far too limited and it will only distract from my projects right now. For what is it worth, my favorite of creationist is Walter Brown. His hydro-plate theory makes far more sense to me than anything else I have seen. His site can be found here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ I would encourage everyone to get his book.

John Harrigan really nails a lot in his Biblical Theology of Mission I think and Walt Brown makes the most compelling case for a plain reading of scripture I have encountered yet also.

The most common product of naturalism is atheism, on abundant display all across the western world these days. I work with youth and I can tell you that it is their first argument almost every time, a stumbling block that keeps them from trust. “The earth looks old”, “no evidence of a flood”, etc etc. When you push them for even rudimentary details to support their indoctrination, they can’t tell you a thing about the evidence, scientific process, or the different lenses through which one interprets the information. Frankly, naturalism is keeping generations of children from Christ, they will tell you that themselves. The fruit speaks volumes about the ideological tree.

Didn’t I just say in my post that I am not interested in any kind of debate? Until you have a truly open mind to listen to a well reasoned argument and understanding about the full explanation of the old earth position and the answers it provided for me, I would not be so quick to rush to judgment. As Joel just said, he doesn’t have time and neither do I nor is it essential doctrine to the faith about the age of the earth. I just disagree with the young earth creationist’s position. Why do you insist on it otherwise? I’m not here to change your mind and you will not change mine.

Yes, I think one of the easiest ways to access Walt Brown’s info is through listing to John’s teaching on the subject. Truly great stuff. DTN by the way is where you can find endless fantastic resources; audio, video, music, etc. All backed by great theology.

Hey brethren, don’t you know that this debate, despite the secular world negative response against Ken Ham and creationism, he was able to preached the Gospel to millions of people, beating the viewership of the Superbowl itself, even trended in twitter and Facebook. The Gospel was preached powerfully on that single event across the world, which would not be done otherwise. Imagine that. Remember Isaiah 5:11 says “the Word will not return void”. Somewhere, someone one soul was able to receive the Gospel and made the heaven rejoice. So let us feel proud that this thing happened no matter if the world view us as fools. Creationists and Ken Ham was considered as one after the debate for even quoting scriptures. Yet we should be gladly identify with our Savior who was also unfairly despised by the world himself.

I think you make a very good point. I have always suspected that “the gospel will be preached to the whole world and then the end will come” is somewhat akin to this. I suspect (not sound prophecy)that the confrontation between the Beast from the Abyss and the Witnesses will be streamed to the whole world. Prior to their martyrdom during this streamed confrontation, they will preach the gospel to the whole world. Just a theory of mine.

Amen! Thanks for noting Ken Ham’s presentation of the gospel. I was so impressed with his gracious manner throughout the debate. The gospel should be at the heart of all apologetics, including debates about origins — perhaps especially when discussing origins. The gospel of Jesus Christ began in Genesis, after all.

What we’re dealing with is the wilful suppression of all facts and evidence which affirms Moses’ history of the world.

Yes, there is some evidence which by itself might point towards evolution, but there’s an abundance of evidence pointing in the other direction which is never acknowledged or talked about in the school system, that’s why they can say we’re anti-science, because our position seems to deny the only facts/evidence they’ve been presented with, and to them, it seems so overwhelming, but if they could only know just how much evidence there is affirming the Bible, so many more people would be more open to entering the kingdom, because they’d know the Bible is actually true and reliable, but this wilful suppression will continue till our Lord returns and sets up his glorious kingdom, but you’ve gotta think about what schooling and universities will be like in the millennium. Guest speakers? Noah, Moses, and all the rest of the righteous who will be raised with glorious bodies like the Lord at the resurrection. The true history of the world will be widely acknowledged. I can’t wait for that day.

David, the link was excellent. I forwarded it to my children’s science teacher. She is a creationist and should find it quite enlightening.

The agenda in the debate is not science on the part of evolutionists. Without the evolution theory they are left facing the fact that there is a creator. Their entire worldview, their careers, everything about their very lives hinge on this fragile theory. Of course, they supress, to the world and to themselves.

God created Adam a full adult, approx 30 years old. God made the universe, stars already in same fashion, spoke it into existence. God said let there be light….. before sun,moon,stars and etc…. God is light.